User talk:Emt147/Archive 2

Mi-2

Mi-2 was designed by Mi-2 bureau (that is why it has Mi designation) but it was never produced in Mil factorys (where Mi-8 is manufactured) only in PZL Świdnik in Poland, in other words Mi-2 was designed by Mil bureau specially for PZL factory - so designation Mil Mi-2 is simply wrong (can you give me some sources where you found it?) i if it is used then can only refer to prototypes from Mil bureau (not factory).

Thule Air Base

Reconnaissance: I have added my direct knowledge, picture and text.---plumalley

Incirlik Air Base

I uploaded a track drawing using a mispelled name: Image:incirlik_recon.JPG; caps all wrong. I don't know how to delete the entry I re-entered the photo Image:Incirlik_Recon.jpg and was successful in getting a thumb; although somewhat improperly located.

It occurs me to me that we have not specified Gary Powers' route from Pakistan to Norway. We might note the two airbases and draw a route. I do not have the data. --plumalley

Chrome Dome Route

I understand that there were only two Routes, North and South Mine was South In which article would you want me to put an image of my 1963-5 26 hour route?--plumalley

Royal Thai Air Force Bases

I have written all I can on RTAFB. Perhaps you would pass this article along for cleanup. My purpose was to memorialize my time in Thailand. I thought it to be an exuberant place. The Thais were in no way resentful of Americans, nor intimidated by us. They exhibit an attitude of freedom; (They appear to discount the issue of repeated military coups.) --plumalley

KC-97

I have added links to this article. It appears that aviation enthusiasts have neglected the airplane that made many B-47 missions possible. (I think I recall a John Wayne movie where he nursed a Boeing 377 Stratocruiser back to San Francisco at night on two engines, 50 feet off the water.) --plumalley

Chrome Dome

OK, I uploaded Image of the southern Chrome Dome route. There was a northern one, probably through Thule. I do not know how many bombers were airborne simultaneously, other than the nominal two, and the secure overlap upon takeoff (2 hours.) It is interesting that our "recovery", with a very light airplane, and perhaps 80,000 pounds of fuel was programmed at 55,000 ft, throttles near idle, not unlike a U-2. We practiced the 55,000 quarterly. The CIA had arranged refueling TEAMS on the ground at Tehran, Khartoum, Dakar, Port of Spain?, to enable recovery at Edwards. (six weapons: we had 2 Hound Dogs. 26 hours is a L-o-n-g---t-i-m-e --plumalley

Public Figure

OK, I've changed my mind. There are many web pages extant on Leo Thorsness; He has run (unsuccessfully) for US Senator from SD being beaten by Tom Daschale by but 100 votes. So, lets link F-105: Medal of Honor: Leo Thorsness to Wild Weasel mission transcript Part 2 which is the 19 April, 1967 four hour mission (abbreviated to 18 minutes) for which he was awarded the Medal of Honor. On 30 April, 1967 , a week later, flying with the same courage he (and Harry) were shot down and thereafter tortured for six years in the most heinous manner. It is important that our young people understand that this is not all just some sort of GAME; that our Heros, most of them, have suffered mightly for HONOR and for us and where we are today. Incidentally; One does not "win" the Medal of Honor. It is not a contest. --plumalley

User:Ingoolemo/Threads/06/04/01a

Wild Weasel Narrative

Please confirm that you have received the first person Barracuda Narrative written by Sparky, which supersedes the summary that I wrote on the Discussion page.--plumalley

125.236.44.0/23

Thanks for the reminder, I've temporarily range blocked those IP's. 1 — xaosflux ^Talk 01:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: |ref=

Thanks! :) I've been trying to figure out how best to integrate it for a while, and I finally hit on this way. The full < ref > tags in the section header clearly wasn't doing the trick. ericg ✈ 16:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Col Sparks

I have just uploaded Image:Buick2_671105_RedDog_Marlin.ogg. It supports Col Sparks story today attached to an e-mail to you. The leading three minutes has nothing to do with Sparky, but I had no where elese to put it. It is a good come-on. Otherwise, there are 13 minutes of the efforts to Rescue two shot-down airplanes, Sparky's Marlin-1 and RedDog4, described in his Narrative. I have not yet written a Script for the audio.--plumalley

re: 3-views

I'm not actually measuring them - I figure they're most useful for identification, not precision. What I've been doing is finding old crappy and/or copyrighted 3-views online and tracing them with photoshop's vector tools. Different layers for details or overlapping features, that sort of thing. I could upload a sample .psd if you like. ericg ✈ 01:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) They usually take around a few hours, but I'm getting faster (and I'll probably start re-using the basic layers for similar shapes). ericg ✈ 17:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's true about Goebel's plan views, but the problem is a lot of them aren't actually 3-views. Many are just top or side views, and I'm not sure how we feel about using a single view. ericg ✈ 03:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 is better than one. I have a lot of old images of Soviet aircraft I can play with, so I'll contribute. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 04:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Reconnaissance.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Reconnaissance.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. Please clearly quote the source and add a copyright tag. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Hunter 05:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Mildenhall Recon.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mildenhall Recon.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

THUD RIDGE

is at 21 28' 26" N, 105 38' 57" E north of NOIBAI International Airport (VVNB) which is at 21 13'14" N, 105 48' 21" E.; as seen on Google-Earth. Are you drawing a map of this?--Plumalley

Yes! Sorry. I just looked at your map on the F-105 article. Yes, it is pictured correctly.--Plumalley

If you are going to picture Thud Ridge you should picture the approach to it. As you now know all flights are route planned to avoid as much of the heavily defended Red River Valley bottom as possible, considering where the target may be. (Approachs from the Tonkin gulf typically approached from the East along the Chinese-no-fly zone.) From the West the approach to the north end of the Ridge was from the area of Yen Bai and its fighter field 21 42" 39" N, 104 52" 12" E--Plumalley

Your re-write of F-105 is Admirable. However, I do not recall any talk about aircraft losses "ON" Thud Ridge. Your statement opposite your map of the Ridge "and because many aircraft had been lost on it." may be an artistic assumption. Did a pilot actually say this?--plumalley

ParserFunctions

Something weird is going on with the thrust:weight calc - check out Concorde. Oddly, it's working fine at English Electric Lightning. Unless, of course, I don't understand what is being calculated. Which wouldn't be a shock :). ericg ✈ 22:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see what's going on. Can't you just nest an if function to test for {{{thrust/weight}}}? ericg ✈ 22:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, you were right the first time. I just added the calculated thrust/weight; it wasn't there before, and was causing an error. I don't think the leading zero is needed. ericg ✈ 22:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes

Sorry, but it's not an argument. The fact that some guy did not know how to prepare a decent infobox and created something as monstrous as the P-59 Airacomet thingie should be an argument in favour of unified infoboxes rather than against them. If the infobox was a template and had a fixed width (just like all modern infoboxes do), the table would not affect the text of the article in any resolution, except perhaps for some improperly configured palmtop screens. If you don't believe me just do the same test you described for, let's say, Józef Piłsudski, 7TP or Battle of Grunwald. //Halibu tt 00:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but most site statistics report that the number of people to use 640x480 is between more or less zero, compared to roughly 75% using 1024x768 and above. I know I should be sorry for the people who are stuck with their black and white monitors too, but... you know, wikipedia should aim higher than the machines obsoleted in early 1990s. Or am I wrong? Should we make wikipedia black and white as well? After all not every gfx card is able to handle VGA colours... And why bother adding ogg files if there are people with Adlibs still around? //Halibu tt 01:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:209.173.14.125

That's a school IP, which means multiple people use it. As the last edit was a vandal reversion, that meant that either one person (the vandal) was using the IP, but they decided to take note of the warnings. Or it could have been that someone else from the school (quite possibly in the same room) saw the vandalism being done and decided to remove it. Either way the vandalism had stopped, and hasn't continued for now. Blocks on Wikipedia are used to prevent vandalism, not to punish it. Therefore a block would not have been appropriate at that time. If the vandalism returns feel free to re-report to WP:AIV, however they will probably need warning again (for the same reason as above, it could be a different person using the IP address and they won't have seen the previous warnings). Hope that helps explain things. Feel free to get back to me if you have any further questions, and thanks for helping out in the fight against vandalism! Cheers, Petros471 18:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Aircraft straw poll

I know you dropped me a line (which wasn't necessary, but nice of you ;) about the Infobox consensus discussion, but did you leave messages with the rest of WP:Air? The number of participants has gotten pretty big, so we can hopefully get a high voter turnout. It also might be worthwhile to set a time limit (say, two or three weeks) on the voting. Also, thanks for the praise on the infobox! When I saw the other summary-type infoboxes, I realized that was probably the answer to our long-lived 'here, have an / i want an infobox' problem. ericg ✈ 18:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Air Infobox

Thanks for letting me know, that whole discussion passed me by and I would never have known. I've added my thoughts. Thanks again, Mark83 22:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, I wasn't using a comma for more users because of how {{Infobox Company}} and {{Infobox University}} format multiple entries - key people, products, that sort of thing. I'm hoping we can maintain a level of consistency with these infoboxes. ericg ✈ 05:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Count

Hi Emt147,

I'm giving you your edit count, as I thought it might help you in your RfA. I used Flcelloguy's Tool, so the information is correct as of 08:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

And now (drum roll, please), your stats:

Statistics for: Emt147
(Permissions: N/A)
- Total: 3716 -
Main: 2483
Talk: 263
User: 112
User talk: 296
Wikipedia: 119
Wikipedia talk: 216
Image: 44
Template: 133
Template talk: 46
Category: 3
Category talk: 1
-------------------
Total edits: 3716
Minor edits: 629
Edits with edit summary: 3238
Edits with manual edit summary: 2713
Percent minor edits: 16.92%  *
Percent edit summary use: 87.13%  *
Percent manual edit summary use: 73.0%  *
-------------------
* - percentages are rounded down to the nearest hundredth.
-------------------

--Primat e ^#101 08:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mikoyan MiG-25 Vandalism?

Excuse me, Sir. My last edits to this page were not vandalism. The current photos at the top of the page(MiG-25PU) are hard to see in thumbnailed view. I felt that a clear side-view of a single-seat Foxbat in flight was more appropriate photo to illustrate what the aircraft really looks like, rather than a blurry shape against some buildings. As for leaving a mess of a page... it looks like a total mess now, with huge spaces of white surrounding the "development" header. If my changes totally screwed up the formatting, it wasn't apparent on my system. In any case, I stand by the changes I made, and I will make similar edits should I come across a page that needs the treatment. None of my edits(including vandalism removal) have been done in anything but good-faith, mistakes included.

Poor editor... mabye I am, I can live with that. Vandal, I am not.

Gooberliberation 09:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA: Don't be discouraged

Hi. I'm sorry to see you've decided to withdraw, even though consensus was unlikely to be reached. I know it's a disappointment to have a RfA fail, but you should not let it get to you too much. Check out this RfA, which, at this time, is about to close. Notice the overwhelming support that the user has received. But notice, also, that it's this user's third attempt. Of course, I'm not saying that you will fail again before you succeed, or that you are certain to get it the next time. What I am saying is that, as long as you don't let yourself be discouraged, a good contributor is bound to be recognized by the community. A successful RfA is all about doing good work, so all you need to do is keep at it. Cheers, Redux 18:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, about the test3 controversy, why don't you create a template yourself in a place like User:Emt147/Test2 with the content:

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism.
If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. If you continue, you
might even be blocked from editing! Thank you.

I'm sure that wouldn't be frowned upon. Don't give up! Cheers, F e tofs ^Hello! 23:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

infobox - users

When an aircraft has more than one primary user (as in A-6 Intruder), please list the second/third primary users in |more users=. This turns the label into a plural. Thanks! ericg ✈ 16:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please no more than 4 total users listed in the infobox (and separated by <code><br/></code> tags). More than that will likely result in the eventual bloating of what is currently a pretty tidy setup. ericg ✈ 17:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: captions

If you can figure out a way to make it descriptive, rather than just the model, I would leave it. Just stating the subvariant, however, isn't what I consider a 'caption'. The differences in model are described in the article anyway. ericg ✈ 05:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would think an essay of a caption would be equally inappropriate. Captions should by definition be a brief explanation of the picture; "P-51D" is too short, while "A P-51D of the 551st Fighter Squadron waiting in a revetment somewhere in Europe on April 23, 1944 prior to a mission. Note the bubble canopy and four-bladed propeller, indicating that it is in fact a D model Mustang" (for example; this is how the pre-infobox F-4 Phantom caption read) would be too long. Writing good captions (and I'm not about to say that I do so) is an art - ask any journalist or editor. ericg ✈ 05:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ingoolemo/Threads/06/04/29a

My vandalism

You're right, I really shouldn't vandalize. You'll notice that my last couple of edits were constructive. Hopefully I will be able to become a useful part of the wikipedia community. Latinlovinglatino 17:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with Image:Mirage 2000C 3-view.gif

Hello sir... I received and read your entry on my talk page. I want to ask: What should I do? Should I investigate the copyright owner of that image at the site where I found the image (and elsewhere)? If I can't find it, may I retrace it with an external application (Adobe Illustrator) and reupload it as my work (with a bit less detail, so that it won't be a 1:1 match copy)? Failing those, I guess I should delete it. — I always reference my findings, but am still new at uploading correctly images to Wikipedia (it's especially hard to determine the right license), so please accept my apology and guide me on the right path. --Henrickson 07:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have retraced this 3-view in Illustrator, with less detail, and re-uploaded with the same filename (Mirage 2000C 3-view.gif). I would like to have your consent/approval to add it to the Mirage 2000 article, please. --Henrickson 22:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image looks great! Nice job! - Emt147 ^Burninate! 23:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll add it right away. I'll also retrace and re-upload my other 3-views to solve any copyvio issues. Have a nice day. :-) --Henrickson 00:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SAAB/Saab

Hello again - as promised, here is reference to the relevant history, as regards the automobile side of things. The required sequence of changes is laid out at the following URL: http://www.saabnet.com/tsn/models/2001/pr4.html - I hope this helps disentangle the problem. I have copied this from the Saab talk page I think that the information is also relevant to the aircraft division - I'll keep working on it. Ballista 10:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the aircraft company's name information, which I have copied from the Saab Talk page:

"Here is the next 'instalment' - this is the best information I can find on the aircraft manufacturer's name (now Saab AB) http://wrightreports.ecnext.com/coms2/reportdesc_BUSINESS_C752C4130 I hope this helps" - Ballista 10:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the word "dubious"

Hi EMT I am an aviation entusiast myself. Sorry for the constant changes.

I think you might be mistaking the meaning of the word "dubious" whis means uncertainty. Websters definition is 1 : giving rise to uncertainty: as a : of doubtful promise or outcome <a dubious plan> b : questionable or suspect as to true nature or quality <the practice is of dubious legality <the dubious honor of being the world's biggest polluter> 2 : unsettled in opinion : DOUBTFUL <I was dubious about the plan>

What you are trying to say makes better sence with the word "notorious" which websters says means 1. generally known and talked of; especially : widely and unfavorably known.

I think the word notorious makes a better fit for what you are trying to say and makes your article sound much more intelligent. Why would it be bad english?

'born from jets'

Ah, interesting you should mention it - it has bothered me from time to time. While I believe that the 'claim' is becoming less valid with time, they may still be legitimate in that the heritage of the design department is probably still influenced by the jet history. Ballista 19:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly a lot of GM stuff going on, more so in USA than Europe. My belief is, however, that the 9.5 and 9.3 still have a great deal of design input from Saab, rather than just 'rebadging'. Without word and verification from the Saab factory, I cannot be definite. Ballista 19:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Texan

Interested in why you moved my picture to the right. If you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Pictures it states that where there are multiple images they can be staggered. Personally, I don't like to see all pictures lined up as on a parade ground (had enough of that :-) GrahamBould 08:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ingoolemo/Threads/06/05/05a

Hello

Hi Emt147. As the Mirage F.1 article lacks images, I began to include pictures from my own collection. I did think about putting the one you saw today inside the infobox, but I decided otherwise as the image gets too small. I'll post one or two more which are perhaps better suited to be put inside the box. Regards. Andrés C. 00:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't want the images to be much bigger than 250 px anyway. Remember, 250 px is small if your monitor is at a high resolution. If you are at a library or low-income facility/country and your monitor is at 640x480, a 250 px photo will take up half the page. This is less of a problem when the adjacent text is narrow (i.e. specs) so the 3-views have been in the 350 px range, but it gets oppressive if it squishes all the text. There are no hard guidelines but use your best judgement. - Emt147 Burninate! 07:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I saw what you were talking about. As a matter of fact, I contribute mostly from a laptop with a wide-aspect 15.4-inch screen @ 1280 x 800 resolution. So yes, things tend to get rather small when you put anything below 300 pixels. Many thanks for pointing that out. Andrés C. 20:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing 777

Hi, I was deleting a minor piece of vandalism at the very top of the page. I must have removed the WP:Airheader at the same time. Sorry about that. AA Milne 03:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Site

Hi Emit. After answering your Blackbird "Record Speed" question and seeing your answer, I clicked onto your User page. Good job, and although I haven't read all of it yet, I enjoyed your Ficon article. My first assignment after being commissioned as a 2/Lt / Navigator in 1955 was to RB-36F's in the 347th BS, part of the 99th BW ( the other two squadrons being the 346th and the 348th, the latter assigned to the Ficon project ). I remember talking with some of the 348th crewmembers at the O'Club about their experiences. Apparently, when a RF-84 pilot made his first airborne approach to his mothership the accoustic beating he received from the six props would startle the hell out of him and he had to be pre-cautioned to understand what he would be hearing/experiencing. Good stories; good memories.

One additional "nit" about computing mach numbers from record speeds: remember, that although high altitude winds tend to be much lighter than at lower altitudes, the U-2 and Blackbird did encounter winds. Thus, a record speed in MPH would be the ground speed which could have a wind component in it. Thus, a mach 3.2 flight could produce an equivilent mach 3.29 groundspeed if that was the case. Not a "biggie", but just a thought for you and future calculations.

Pleased to see and read of your Aviation interests.

User: David Dempster, 23:47, 7 May 2006

Bot malfunction

Orphanbot just nuked this image Image:P-51D.jpg. The image page clearly states it is a PD image from the Commons, and the source is clearly listed on the page. I revert a dozen of these every week -- please tweak your filters. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 18:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you're referring to the right image? There's no evidence that Image:P-51D.jpg has ever been uploaded to the English Wikipedia, and OrphanBot's logs don't show it ever having come across an image with that name. --Carnildo 20:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source for Fair Use images

If the source is used to ascertain the copyright status of the image, the source should not matter for fair use images. It says right in the template tag that the image is copyrighted. Why would it matter then where it came from? For image:Farman F.222.jpg I Googled it and pasted the URL of the first website that came up. That accomplished exactly nothing because that website probably scanned the image from a book or also Googled it. But hey, it has a source now. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 20:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Wikipedia:Fair use states, determining if a use is "fair" or not depends on four factors:

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Evaluating factors 2, 3, and 4 requires knowing the real source of the image (not a random website). --Carnildo 20:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are just being obstinant on purpose.

to illustrate the aircraft in question
where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information

Fair Use laws were written specifically for these cases. The company which built the aircraft has not existed since 1936. The author is unknown and in all likelihood impossible to determine. Every single aircraft book ever published relies on these old images. I can just as easily change the tag to "promophoto" since that's what these photographs are 99% of the time. If you were familiar with the field, you would have a better understanding of the matter. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 21:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, fair use laws were written to protect "transformative uses" of copyrighted materials such as quoting part of a work in a review or for scholarly criticism. Use of a copyrighted image to illustrate an object in that image is not covered under "fair use".

Use of works where the copyright is hard to track down, or where the copyright holder has effectively abandoned the work, is a separate area of copyright law, one that basically says "if you can't find the copyright holder, it's still copyright infringement if they find you". (See Abandonware#Abandonware and the Law for an example of this.)

And if you change the copyright tag to {{promophoto}}, you'd damn well be able to prove that it came out of a company's press kit. --Carnildo 21:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:F-104

A photograph of Folland Gnat does not belong on a page about F-104 for what should be obvious reasons. Why do you keep reinserting it? - Emt147 ^Burninate! 01:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice your change and pasted the whole text again with a rephrase of the paragragh. The Gnat was forced to land by an F-104, so I thought it deserved it to be there (yes, the caption was not that explanatory). Do you think it's too trivial or do you think the pic should be there? Waqas.usman 01:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grob G 120 Templates

Well, I created this page with the Wiki-aircraft new-page-template. Thereby the templates were inserted, and I had to put in the info I have. So I edited the templates. I deleted the informations I didn't need and added some other info. I think, the problem was that the template creating the new page called the templates directly instead of substituing them. Thanks for your help :) RichardJahn

Sea Hawk

In response to your reversion of the Hawker Sea Hawk specifications, my specifications do come from a creditable source. They are directly sourced from the 256 page book “Fighter Aircraft by Francis Crosby of The Imperial War Museum Duxford”. Apart from official specifications I don’t think a more reliable source exists.

Below are some photos of the book (please excuse the quality)

[1] This is the cover of the book
[2] This is the Sea Hawk page
[3] This is the spec-box
[4] These are the specs in question

H-1 Racer was an influential design on WWII fighters...

I don't agree that my comments are "wildly speculative".

"Now regarding the Japanese Zero . . . The Japanese Zero was a shock of the utmost magnitude to the United States because it had been thought up to that time that the Japanese were far inferior mechanically, I should say in point of aircraft design and mechanical aptitude, to the United States and nobody expected the Japanese to have an airplane that would be at all competitive. Well, in any event, when one of these Japanese Zeros was finally captured and studied and analyzed it was quite apparent to everyone that it had been copied from the Hughes plane which has been discussed earlier here." UNLV Library Howard Hughes web page.

"The Hughes H-1 was designed for record-setting purposes, but it also had an impact on the design of high-performance aircraft for years to come... The Hughes H-1 racer was a major milestone aircraft on the road to such radial engine-powered World War II fighters as the American Grumman F6F Hellcat and Republic P-47 Thunderbolt, the Japanese Mitsubishi Type 0 (Zero), and the German Focke-WuIf FW 190. It demonstrated that properly designed radial-engine aircraft could compete with the lower-drag inline designs despite having larger frontal areas because of their radial engine installations." National Air and Space Museum H-1 Racer

"This airplane (the H-1), nevertheless, inspired many subsequent radial-engine fighters: the Republic P-47, Mitsubishi Zero and Focke-Wulf 190." Curtiss Wright Corporation History

Jim Wright (who built the replica of the H-1): Wright was intrigued by the H-1 for a variety of reasons. One was the technological aspect of the H-1. It was advanced far beyond the state-of-the-art for 1935; the military was still flying fabric-covered fixed-gear biplanes at the time. The H-1 had a major impact on aircraft development, and likely influenced such notable aircraft as the P-47, the Zero, and the Focke-Wolfe Fw-190. AVweb

In my opinion the NASM, the UNLV web site and the Curtis Wright web sites are authoritative. In addition, Jim Wright was an expert on the plane. I believe these sources. user:cglassey

All of this is completely speculative (remember, no speculation or original research on Wikipedia). I've heard the Zero claim before but never from a primary source I could cite (I have a copy of the official USAAF analysis of the Zero based on a captured aircraft and it makes no mention of the H-1) -- everything you mentioned is a secondary source and none of them cite any references. Therefore, they are very likely to perpetuate generalizations, myths, and misconceptions. Note that none of your sources say HOW the H-1 influenced these aircraft, only that it did (leading by example perhaps? that's a BIG leap of logic and an ever bigger leap of evidence). This is akin to claiming that the canard-equipped Wright Flyer influenced the Sukhoi Su-30. You need to cite primary sources and show specific details, not broad generalizations. H-1 was not unique -- there were plenty of other streamlined radial-engined designs at the time, particularly those from Lockheed and Northrop, that could make the same sweeping claims of paternity. - Emt147 Burninate! 04:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not making over-broad generalizations, nor am I doing "original research", nor am I engaged in speculation. Howard Hughes, the National Air and Space Museum, the historian for Curtis Wright company, and others are making these statements. I judge that these people are (a) reputable (b) in a position to know and (c) are acknowledged experts on the subject. The extent of my involvement was to look at the timeline on design and determin that the assertions are plausible. Then I added the comments into the articles. I fail to see how you can assert that a direct statement by Howard Hughes on this topic is not a primary source. He designed and built the H-1. If anyone was in a position to judge if a plane is based on his design, it is Hughes. Even if a designer for the Zero, or the Fw-190, or the P-47 was to assert that they didn't base their design on the H-1, would their statement be considered definative? No. The designers of the Zero and the other planes mentioned have every incentive to magnify their own contribution and minimize the contributions of others. Which is why when asserting one design is based on a previous design, we (the non-experts) rely on informed judgements by experts in the field. I submit that the sources I have quoted fullfill this criteria. user:cglassey

You are quoting tertiary sources that do not cite references but that make sweeping generalizations. The kind of writing on the NASM or Wright page would get reverted in a flash on Wikipedia due to sweeping unreferenced statements. How can you call them "reputable" and "experts" if you don't even know the authors of the writings. Hughes makes a vague statement to the tune of "my airplane was copied by the Japanese" but presents no evidence. Therefore, absolutely the only way to present it is as "Howard Hughes claimed that the Zero was copied from his H-1 racer" (reference)...

Quote from the Wikipedia on sources: A primary source is any piece of information that was created at the time being studied, by the people being studied...oral interviews with participants taken years later are considered primary sources Primary source. Howard Hughes, offering an opinion about about his plane, the H-1, and its role in aviation history, in 1954, is a primary source. Not a tertiary source. Howard Hughes, as the designer, does not have to offer any support for his opinion. He is an expert on the topic and is capable of rendering an opinion on it which carries real weight for historians.

The NASM is an athoritative source on the airplanes in its collection. Period. If you don't accept this statement then we have nothing more to talk about. I don't have to know who wrote the statements about the H-1 on the NASM web site because the statements are backed by the full historical weight of the NASM. "A secondary source is a historical work built up from primary sources." What is on the NASM web site is a secondary source, not a tertiary source. To quote from the article on primary sources: "A primary source is not, by default, more authoritative or accurate than a secondary source."

The article on the Curtis Wright web site is by William Wraga, an historian for the Curtis Wright company who has writen a number of historical articles. He is a reputable historian of aviation, his work was citied in an official government publication on the history of aviation. He is not a tertiary source.

So, will you cease this attack on my sources as "tertiary sources"? They are, as I assert, reputable and valid sources - both primary and secondary - for opinions about the relationship between the Hughes H-1 Racer and subsequent war planes of WWII.

In my opinion, I have fully satisfied the burden of proof for including the statements I listed in the articles. Now, its your turn. What experts do you have which support your contention that the H-1 Racer was not copied by the later planes? I've got experts that say it was, what primary or secondary sources do you have that says this is not true? What is your well sourced arguement for keeping this out of the articles? user:cglassey

Quote from Wikipedia:Reliable sources "However, some editors may object if you remove material without giving people a chance to find a source, particularly when the material is not obviously wrong, absurd, or harmful. Instead of removing such material immediately, editors are encouraged to move it to the talk page, or to place the fact template after the disputed word or sentence, or to tag the article by adding not verified or unsourced at the top of the page." Hmmm?

Seems to me my modifications to the articles in question fall in the "not obviously wrong, absurd, or harmful" category, yet you deleted them very rapidly...

Infobox

Sorry, mate, I haven't done any wikiwork for ages (clearly), hence I'm at least a month overdue for my opinion on the wikiproject aircraft infobox. However, I would hope by now that all has been resolved, and that I wouldn't have swayed the argument too drastically. Just wanted to clear up that I wasn't being rude or anything. Thanks

For some reason my signature has stopped working, so just know that I am Xiphon.

User:Ingoolemo/Threads/06/05/19a

Su-33

Thank you for adding the hidden message. by the way, I don't know if it's already happened, but this person added some of the same kind of stuff to other articles. It may have already been deleted but we should watch this person to see if they do any more of this. And on another note, how do you do those hidden messages? LWF 02:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Emt147 for your help. LWF 15:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bomber Command ops & losses

Thanks for your message enquiring about references ( I m not sure how to respond in a preferred Wiki way so hence this message on yout talk page!) regarding the figures for operations and bombing losses I collated these numbers some time ago and neglected to collect the precise references- bear with me and I'll re-trace my steps though my collection of aviation stuff and try and find the source. thanks Harryurz 17:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mi-2

Please, help with guarding Mi-2 article from movments of User:Corran.pl. Thx Radomil talk 18:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for movement was started to resolve this problem in more civilised way - Talk:Mil Mi-2 - discusion & voting. Radomil talk 06:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mi-2

Thule Air Base

Incirlik Air Base

Chrome Dome Route

Royal Thai Air Force Bases

KC-97

Chrome Dome

Public Figure

Wild Weasel Narrative

125.236.44.0/23

re: |ref=

Col Sparks

re: 3-views

Image copyright problem with Image:Reconnaissance.jpg

License tagging for Image:Mildenhall Recon.jpg

THUD RIDGE

ParserFunctions

Infoboxes

Re:209.173.14.125

Infobox Aircraft straw poll

Air Infobox

Edit Count

Mikoyan MiG-25 Vandalism?

RfA: Don't be discouraged

infobox - users

Re: captions

My vandalism

Copyright problems with Image:Mirage 2000C 3-view.gif

SAAB/Saab

Changing the word "dubious"

'born from jets'

Texan

Hello

Boeing 777

Good Site

More Answers

Bot malfunction

Source for Fair Use images

Re:F-104

Grob G 120 Templates

Sea Hawk

H-1 Racer was an influential design on WWII fighters...

Infobox

Su-33

Bomber Command ops & losses

Mi-2